The Harry Potter Lexicon Link to Main page of the Harry Potter Lexicon.

The Lexicon Blog

Deathly Hallows

We’ve been doing lots of work around the site today, as you’ve probably noticed if you’ve looked around.

One bigger thing I’ve put together: a page about the Deathly Hallows. Enjoy!

This entry was posted in What's New. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Derek

    It is worth noting that Harry intended to return the Elder wand to Dumbledore’s tomb.

  • Arun

    Nowhere does it indicate that Slytherin was a descendent of the Peverells, nor vice-versa. I do not think that he would have made the stone into a ring in any case.

  • Katie

    I think that dumbledore wore the ring, thus incurring the curse, before he destroyed it. I believe the curse is related to it being a horcrux, not a Hallow.

  • Hermy

    Nowhere does it indicate that Slytherin was a descendent of the Peverells, nor vice-versa. I do not think that he would have made the stone into a ring in any case.

    —
    In Half Blood Prince, Marvolo Gaunt waves the ring in th face of ( I forgot his name) saying that he was a descendent of the Perevells.

    All the pure-bloods are somehow related anyway. So Harry is very very distantly related to Voldemort.

  • Kaley

    All we know is that the Gaunts are descended from both Slytherin and Cadmus Peverell. We don’t know if there is a closer familial relationship between them. The locket is Slytherin’s, the ring ‘has the Peverell coat of arms,’ (yes, I know it doesn’t) is all Marvolo Gaunt says.

  • Hermy

    All we know is that the Gaunts are descended from both Slytherin and Cadmus Peverell. We don’t know if there is a closer familial relationship between them. The locket is Slytherin’s, the ring ‘has the Peverell coat of arms,’ (yes, I know it doesn’t) is all Marvolo Gaunt says.

    In Deathly Hallows Harry remembered what Gaunt Says and He says a descendant of Perevells, I read it twice. I can’t find the page number.

    You are right about the HalfBlood Prince though . I was mistaken it was in DH.

  • Tunnza

    In Deathly Hallows Harry remembered what Gaunt Says and He says a descendant of Peverells.
    .
    But the Gaunts could be the descendants of both Slytherin and the Peverells. I agree that Voldemort made the ring into a horcrux because it belonged to the Gaunts. I can’t find anything in HBP10 that indicates Slytherin made the stone into a ring.

  • Tunnza

    It’s my opinion that Dumbledore (DD) tried to wear the ring *before* he had destroyed the horcrux, and that’s the cause of the fatal curse. In DH, p680, Snape is trying to heal DD’s hand. The ring, with a cracked stone, and Gryffindor’s sword are on DD’s desk. So it seems to me DD got the ring, put it on, got cursed, took it off and destroyed the horcrux (travel time & summoning Snape not included). In HBP, p67, Harry sees the ring (with the cracked stone) on DD’s uninjured hand. So it’s obviously not dangerous now.

    And Harry doesn’t put the ring on in DH. Once he has it out of the snitch he turned the stone over in his hand three times. The shades appear and walk with him to the clearing. On p 703 he drops the stone, never having put it on.

  • Alison aka NobleBirth Descending

    Two things:

    On the new DH page, it says that the Hallows were never reunited by Harry. Perhaps not physically, but the Elder Wand had allegiance to Harry from the time he disarmed Draco. Combined with the continued possession of his invisibility cloak and the stone being around his neck, Harry had control of all three Hallows for quite some time – he just didn’t realize it.

    Marvolo Gaunt’s claim of kinship with Peverell must have been true. Why else would Dumbledore have said on DH pg771 that Voldemort was “both kin and mortal enemy” to Harry?

  • Hermy

    But the Gaunts could be the descendants of both Slytherin and the Peverells. I agree that Voldemort made the ring into a horcrux because it belonged to the Gaunts. I can’t find anything in HBP10 that indicates Slytherin made the stone into a ring.
    ___________________________________

    Sorry for some reason I thought you guys just meant Voldemort.

    I agree The gaunts were related to both.

  • Joe Coffey

    As I read the book I assumed the Elder Wand was called the Elder Wand because it was so old. But Elder wood is on the Celtic tree “zodiac” on JKR’s site for Nov 25-Dec 23. I don’t remember elder wood being used in any other wand. According to this site , a folk name for the elder tree is the Tree of Doom! Fitting!

  • Joe Coffey

    Sorry, that didn’t post right. Here’s the site.
    http://www.shee-eire.com/Herbs,Trees&Fungi/Trees/Elder/Factsheet1.htm

  • Dave

    “Upon his death, Dumbledore intended for Severus Snape to become the master of the Elder Wand, but failed to take into account that, as his death was pre-planned, Snape had not truly defeated him.” (From the Page). Actually, I think Dumbledore simply intended Snape to kill him, preplanned, so no one would gain the wand.

    Tunnza, on p547 (UK) of DH, following your quote, Snape states that “did you think breaking the ring would break the curse?”, suggesting that the ring was broken.

  • http://harryquacker.blogspot.com Harry Quacker

    Right-clicking works on the Deathly Hallows page.

    “Upon his death, Dumbledore intended for Severus Snape to become the master of the Elder Wand, but failed to take into account that, as his death was pre-planned, Snape had not truly defeated him.”

    Is this true that he intended Snape to have the wand? I might have missed that part.

    Last paragraph: “however, as Harry dropped the ring in the woods before gaining po session of the Elder Wand”

    There is an extra space in the word “possesion”

  • Vroom Socko

    Another comment to say that Dumbledore did in fact wear the ring prior to destroying it as a horecrux, and not after. Note the sections about the ring in HBP: Harry sees DD wearing the ring when they visit Slughorn, then at the end of the House of Gaunt chapter, he sees the ring on the table, now with a crack in the face.

    Dumbledore definitly decided to put on the ring one he discovered it, and only destroyed it and was then treated by Snape after dropping Harry off at the Burrow.

  • Remi

    Two questions about the “Deathly Hallows” page:
    1. I agree with Dave & Harry Quaker above – I don’t think there is evidence in the book to say with certainty that Dumbledore intended Snape to be the master of the Elder Wand but was mistaken. (I believe Dumbledore is rarely mistaken).
    2. Harry NEVER puts the Resurrection stone/ring on his finger. In chapter 34 (p.560 UK children’s cover version): “HE CLOSED HIS EYES, AND TURNED THE STONEOVER IN HIS HAND, THREE TIMES.” At the end of the chapter it says, “THE RESURRECTION STONE SLIPPED FROM BETWEEN HIS NUMB FINGERS …” He never wore the ring.

  • Myst

    Dave wrote:
    “Upon his death, Dumbledore intended for Severus Snape to become the master of the Elder Wand, but failed to take into account that, as his death was pre-planned, Snape had not truly defeated him.” (From the Page). Actually, I think Dumbledore simply intended Snape to kill him, preplanned, so no one would gain the wand.

    –There is this bit here: . . .p.721″If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end up with the Elder Wand, didn’t you?” “I admit that was my intention,” said Dumbledore, “but it did not work as I intended, did it?”

  • daelirium

    I fairly agree with tunnza, that Dumbledore put on the ring BEFORE the horcrux was destroyed. He probably took out the stone from its setting and placed it in the snitch sometime in HBP, which would explain the ring’s absence as noted by Harry.

  • emmaD

    On the Albus Dumbledore page, it is said that he’s pureblood. But in DH, chapter 8, p. 129 (UK children edition), Auntie Muriel says his mother was Muggleborn. Albus Aberforth and Ariana are therefore half-blood.

  • http://www.hp-lexicon.org/ Lexicon John

    Thanks for comments, everyone. I made a couple of tweaks here and there based on things mentioned above, including taking out reference to Slytherin ever owning the ring (I admit I confused it with the locket, sorry :) ).

    To address the two biggest (I think) misconceptions:

    1. Dumbledore put the ring on AFTER destroying the Horcrux, from this quote in DH33: “[Snape] looked down at the broken ring and the sword. ‘Did you think that breaking the ring would break the curse?'” This implies very strongly that Dumbledore broke the ring first, then put it on. It also verifies that the ring was broken before Harry ever saw him wearing it.

    2 – Dumbledore did intend Snape to have the Elder Wand, with the quote from DH35 that Myst added earlier: “‘If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end up with the Elder Wand, didn’t you?’ ‘I admit that was my intention,’ said Dumbledore….”

    If anybody has any canon evidence that contradicts these quotes, of course I’d love to see it. :)

    Thanks again!

  • viking_joe

    Re #1 — I’d have to go back and re-read it, but I thought Dumbledore told Harry in the train that he put the ring on as soon as he found it, his greed for it overwhelming his judgment that it would be strongly cursed as a horcrux. He let Snape believe that he broke it trying to break the curse only because Snape didn’t know about the horcruxes.

  • leanne

    At King’s Cross, Dumbledore tells Harry, “When I discovered it, after all those years, buried in the abandoned home of the Gaunts — the Hallow I had craved most of all, though in my youth I had wnated it for very different reasons — I lost my head, Harry. I quite forgot that it was now a Horcrux, that the ring was sure to carry a curse. I picked it up, and I put it on…” (p.719, US ed). So he put it on before destroying the Horcrux.

  • Phil

    I’m with Leanne, the quote that lexicon John uses to contradict this can be taken either way. Either that DD broke the ring before putting it on so thinking the curse wouldn’t work, or that he put it on, realised it was cursed and tried to break it to stop the cure(All of this of course is in snapes eyes, who doesn’t know about horcruxes) I’m in favour of the latter way of taking it because it works with some of the other things DD says like what Leanne put…If it was broken and nolonger a horcurx, how could it still contain a curse do ‘do in’ DD? It has to have been on before destroyed.

  • Kathy

    John, regarding #1, in the HBP we find on p. 67-68

    “He shrugged and spread his hands wide, as though to say that age had its compensations, and Harry noticed a ring on his uninjured hand that he had never seen Dumbledore wear before: It was rather large, clumsily made of what looked like gold, and was set with a heavy black stone that had cracked down the middle.”

    Considering in HBP the broken ring was on the uninjured hand, I would assume Dumbledore had put the ring on the injured hand before the destroying the Horcrux.

    Make sense?

  • Barbara

    (I’m sorry, I would be posting on the forum, but I haven’t been able to register.)

    I am still not sure DD intended Snape to be the “master” of the wand. The quote says he intended Snape to “end up with” the wand, but since the killing was pre-planned, the power might have stayed with DD in that case. In a way, the wand would be disarmed. Snape would have it, but without the power it had previously carried. Instead, Draco disarmed DD, and that is why things with the wand did not end up as DD intended.

  • VI

    Leanne is correct. DH Kings Cross clearly has DD say he forgot and put the ring on first.

    The quote from Snape (DH33) is in reference to their discussion that even though he had broken the stone, the curse could not EVER be broken. It was in the context of Snape explaining to DD that even with all he had done to stop it, the curse would kill DD anyway.

    All because of the moment DD succumbed to his innermost desire – the Resurrection Stone. This point is just absolutely critical, because it goes to the whole reason why only Harry and not DD could have ever stopped Voldemort. It wasn’t just prophecy and being “chosen” but that only Harry really knew in his innermost desire that death could not be overcome.

    DD, faced with a very similar situation, sees the Ressurection Stone in the mirror, signifying he still wanted to believe one could “overcome” death, and in the end this desire is what kills him. Whereas Harry saw only his parents there with him, more in line with the way you really beat death – accepting that it has no hold.

  • VI

    To add, DD’s head tells him the right way to think about death, but his innermost desire is still the Resurrection Stone.

    This is such a great parallel btw to the Philosopher’s Stone. This is why DD knows so well that the mirror doesn’t show you what you WANT your innermost desires to be, but what your innermost desire actually IS. There is no way to fake your way through it – which is why only Harry could have ever pulled the other stone out in book one.

  • Myst

    dean wrote:
    Also i felt a bit bad for dumbledore he wasnt his normal self assured self, he didnt seem to think much of himself

    I take that as intentional. After 6 books of glory and power, we are shown that Dumbledore, really is human after all. We finally see why Dumbledore is such a champion of second chances. He’s been there, made major mistakes and made some changes in his life and tried to help others. Sad yes, but I would be thoroughly disgusted if he acted/was presented as if nothing happened, and showed no remorse for what he put people through.

  • Ritz

    VI i think Dumbledore’s innermost desire, from my reading of the conversation between him and Harry in the King’s Cross station, is that Dumbledore’s innermost desire was to find out who killed Ariana and perhaps bring her and his parents back to say sorry to them. I don’t think he wanted the Ressurection stone for itself anymore. He wanted it to realize his innermost desire…

    Also, does anyone know where we can submit questions to be asked on the day of the chat?

  • Ciara

    Ok just to be perfecty clear, Harry is related to Voldermort on the Pervell side which was not in relation to Slytherin right? So that would make the two of them really distant cousins?

  • John

    You guys reacted quite quickly, most of the other sites took forever to do anything, you guys were working the day before, the day after and every day since! You guys are great!

  • Ritz

    Ciara, I dunno if they would actually be cousins – maybe kins? Slytherin could have come into the family tree from either side of Voldemort’s ancestry. I’m really not sure, but I’ll hazard the guess that Slytherin probably was a direct descendent of Cadmus Peverell. I think this is an excellent question to ask Jo on July 30.

  • Plasmatix

    A question. The Elder Wand is unbeatable. The only way to become its master is to defeat, incapacitate, disarm, or otherwise steal the wand from its current master. In a direct confrontation, the wand will always win, so there’s no use using Expelliarmus or Stunning in a direct confrontation, since the Elder Wand always wins. So how did Dumbledore acquire the wand from Grindelwald? They dueled, Dumbledore won… Yet Grindelwald was master of the wand? How did this happen?

  • Hermy

    All because of the moment DD succumbed to his innermost desire – the Resurrection Stone. This point is just absolutely critical, because it goes to the whole reason why only Harry and not DD could have ever stopped Voldemort. It wasn’t just prophecy and being “chosen” but that only Harry really knew in his innermost desire that death could not be overcome.

    DD, faced with a very similar situation, sees the Ressurection Stone in the mirror, signifying he still wanted to believe one could “overcome” death, and in the end this desire is what kills him. Whereas Harry saw only his parents there with him, more in line with the way you really beat death – accepting that it has no hold.

    ______________________________________

    I disagree in pgs 719-720 of DH . Dumbledore stated that he did NOT want the ring for the same reasons he did in his youth, but to see his family again and tell them how sorry he was. I think he would’ve seen his family just like Harry did in the mirror of erised.

    So now we know why DD had a gleam of triumph in GOF. I think DD knew that if Harry faced death he would’ve survived.

    I don’t know if he should’ve trusted Snape or not with this info,horcruxes and all. Snape (although, we can conclude that Snape didn’t care about Harry only Harry’s mother from rereading it, so it really make him no better) probably wouldn’t have thought of himself and Harry as pawns.

    He definitely should have told Harry though. I’m glad DD was flawed just like all the other characters ( with the exception of Ginny of course).

  • Guy Teague

    after harry saves olivander from bellatrix’ dungeon he asks him if his original phoenix-feather wand can be repaired. olivander says: ‘no, not by any means i’m aware of’. does olivanders vast wand-knowledge fail here? should he have known that the elder wand could repair harrys wand?

    /guy

  • nirnel

    Curiously, Grindelwald seems to have stolen the Elder Wand without killing its owner. That would explain why Dumbledore beats him, but it doesn’t explain why the wand acknowledged him. Maybe you just have to beat the current owner regardless of wether he was accepted by the wand, but it would make Harry’s plan (about making it lose its power by dying a natural death) impossible.

    Also, I thought Slytherin was more ancient than the Peverell brothers. I may be mistaken, but I haven’t found anything that makes me think Slytherin was born after any of them lived.

  • DB Fwoopersong

    Minor comment… I noticed a lot of agreement amongst people here that Harry did not wear the ring, but unless I missed it, nobody pointed out the fact that the cracked stone was no longer in the ring when Harry finds it upon opening the snitch. Only the actual resurrection stone has been given/left to him by Dumbledore, not its setting.

  • hamburglar

    “So how did Dumbledore acquire the wand from Grindelwald? They dueled, Dumbledore won… Yet Grindelwald was master of the wand? How did this happen?”

    Well, according to Rita Skeeter (who seems to get most of the facts in this area right, even if she puts her own spin on them) there wasn’t exactly a duel as such. Something else happened, but because Harry never read that bit of the book we don’t know what.

  • Ghilz

    Dumbledore might have simply ambushed or defeated Grinderwald by an indirect attack; ie: blasting a wall so the falling debris disarms him or something or other. Or he might simply have stolen the wand from him like Grindelwald did its previous owner.

  • Ghilz

    “Curiously, Grindelwald seems to have stolen the Elder Wand without killing its owner. it doesn’t explain why the wand acknowledged him. Maybe you just have to beat the current owner regardless of wether he was accepted by the wand, but it would make Harry’s plan (about making it lose its power by dying a natural death) impossible.”

    Apprantly the wand conciders itself earned whenever it is claimed from its living owner’s hands. Grindelwald did ‘disarm’ Gregorovitch, in a way. Its just that, instead of trying a disarming charm on the wandmaker, he simply waited for him to not have the wand on himself. Not that different really.

  • VI

    Hermy – “in pgs 719-720 of DH . Dumbledore stated that he did NOT want the ring for the same reasons he did in his youth, but to see his family again and tell them how sorry he was. I think he would’ve seen his family just like Harry did in the mirror of erised.”

    I agree and disagree. The first sentence you quote means DD STILL wanted the ring, just that then he wanted it only to bring them back to see them and tell them how sorry he was. But this was still not enough and led him to put the ring on and doom himself. So as of PS (right up the Kings Cross chapter I think) DD’s innermost desire was still the ring, STILL to think he could overcome death with something, even if only to say he was sorry. DD still was not resigned to the fact that he could NOT bring them back to make amends. Even though his intentions were good, he had still not triumphed over death – which is to accept it, that there is no resolution, no chance to go back and say you’re sorry, or just to say hello.

    The fact that DD is so compelled to put the ring on the minute he finds it is proof that even then (as of HBP) his innermost desire was STILL to try to use it to overcome death.

    I think if DD had a chance to look in the mirror right there at Kings Cross, or perhaps after realizing he’d been cursed by the ring sometime in HBP, THEN he would have seen just his family.

    But as to the question of “what I SAW” (as in DD during the PS chapter) it had to be himself with the stone.

  • Ritz

    I don’t think Grindelwald was the owner of the wand after his duel with Dumbledore. It wouldn’t make sense. After all Dumbledore had planned to let the power of the wand die with him, so that implies that he was after all the master of the wand after defeating Grindlewald.

  • Blewis999

    If it is simply a matter of waiting for the owner of the elder wand to leave it lying around and taking it, then I think you step into some murky waters. What is the difference between Grindelwald stealing the wand from Gregorovitch’s home and Voldemort stealing the wand from Dumbledore’s tomb. Regardless of who the owner of the wand is at the time Voldemort steals it from the tomb (all evidence points to Harry being the owner, having disarmed Draco), the rightful owner left it lying in the tomb and Voldemort stole it.

  • Ritz

    Blewis999, I think the idea is stealing FROM the owner. I’m sure when Grindlewald stole it from Gregorovich, there must have been some sort of confrontation with the owner of the wand, and Grindlewald was able to best him in this scuffle. If it was lying in Dumbledore’s tomb, Voldemort didn’t confront the rightful owner i.e. Harry. I think the concept is that the wand would go to the most powerful wizard…

  • Blewis999

    We saw that there wasnt a confrontation between Grindelwald and Gregorovitch. Harry saw Voldemort confront Gregorovitch. Voldemort didnt believe Gregorovitch when he said it had been stolen. He then read his mind(Harry was also able to see into Gregorovitch’s mind) and discovered that Gregorovitch merely walked into a room just in time to see Grindelwald laughing as he left Gregorvitch’s house with the elder wand.

  • Alison

    VI – I wholeheartedly agree with your interpretation of the Resurrection Stone as it relates to Dumbledore and the Mirror of Erised. I’d love to chat with you more about this.
    Olivander speculated in Shell Cottage that the Elder Wand could be claimed without murder. Whenever Grindelwald obtained the Elder Wand from Gregorovitch, both wanted it for power and personal gain. Whatever the circumstances were around Dumbledore’s defeat of Grindelwald, Dumbledore became the physical and emotional master of the Elder Wand. He, however, used it for protection rather than domination and destruction as Voldemort noted in the Ministry duel in OotP. Dumbledore remained the master of the wand until Draco disarmed him on the Astronomy Tower at which time Draco became the wand’s emotional master. Even though he did not know the power of the Elder Wand because it was not physically in his possession, the wand remained loyal to Draco until Harry disarmed him at Malfoy Manner. Like Draco, Harry unwittingly was the emotional master of the wand which was waiting to reunite with him physically. Because Harry is the physical and emotional master of the Elder Wand and he is determined not to use it for power and domination or in a quest to beat death, I believe that Death can reclaim his wand and it’s power when Harry passes from this physical world by natural causes.
    Imagine how thing would have changed if Voldemort had taken Draco’s wand instead of Lucius’ during the meeting in DH1…

    And in response to your WOMBAT question Quidditch5, you cannot get a WOMBAT code unless you took the WOMBAT exam when it was offered at jkrowling.com. The code is merely the way to access your test scores.

  • Jason

    So what exactly does everyone think will happen once the hallows are united? What exactly does it mean to truly be “the master of death”? Immortal? Invincible?

    How do you all think the hallows would be reunited? By belonging to the same person or after an unknown incantation?

  • Elizabeth

    Ritz wrote:
    Ciara, I dunno if they would actually be cousins – maybe kins? Slytherin could have come into the family tree from either side of Voldemort’s ancestry. I’m really not sure, but I’ll hazard the guess that Slytherin probably was a direct descendent of Cadmus Peverell. I think this is an excellent question to ask Jo on July 30.
    — July 23, 2007 @ 9:41 pm

    Ciara, from what I remember, the Peverells were either the first, or one of the earliest family names to die out (no boys born). So I take that to mean that at some point, either a Gaunt married a Peverell, and a Potter married a Peverell, or these occurred in other generations after the Peverell name died out. However, yes, that does make Harry and Voldemort distant (*very* distant) cousins. They can trace their families back to brothers, which means they have the same many times great grand-parents on the Peverell side (maybe once or twice, or fifty times, removed)

    Of course, I don’t know if Harry can personally trace his history back that far. He may only be able to say, here’s my dad, and way up there is Ignotus Peverell. It’s still traced, just with a really thick sharpie.

  • Hermy

    I agree and disagree. The first sentence you quote means DD STILL wanted the ring, just that then he wanted it only to bring them back to see them and tell them how sorry he was. But this was still not enough and led him to put the ring on and doom himself. So as of PS (right up the Kings Cross chapter I think) DD’s innermost desire was still the ring, STILL to think he could overcome death with something, even if only to say he was sorry. DD still was not resigned to the fact that he could NOT bring them back to make amends. Even though his intentions were good, he had still not triumphed over death – which is to accept it, that there is no resolution, no chance to go back and say you’re sorry, or just to say hello.

    The fact that DD is so compelled to put the ring on the minute he finds it is proof that even then (as of HBP) his innermost desire was STILL to try to use it to overcome death.

    I think if DD had a chance to look in the mirror right there at Kings Cross, or perhaps after realizing he’d been cursed by the ring sometime in HBP, THEN he would have seen just his family.

    But as to the question of “what I SAW” (as in DD during the PS chapter) it had to be himself with the stone.

    Okay I see what you are saying now.

  • DB Fwoopersong

    Any Ideas About Blackthorn and Elder???

    For some reason, when Hermione analyzes the wand which Ron had won (and therefore of which he should be master) and determines it to be of Blackthorn, my first thought was “Oooh! I’ll bet that’s the Elder wand!” because in my mind I already had linked those two shrub-trees. I was sure I had heard of such a thing as a “blackthorn elder”. But after completing my read of the book, I researched a bit and saw that I had to have been mistaken. However, in hedgerow gardening in the UK, Blackthorn and Elder do indeed grow together. I was wondering if it is worth nothing the magical properties of Blackthorn as they pertain to Ron growing in a sort of “friendship hedgerow” with the magical properties of elder as pertaining to Harry…

  • Kate

    After reading all of these comments, a question comes to mind. Maybe someone can clarify this for me:

    We learn in DH that a wand’s loyalty will pass from person to person by means of simply disarming. However, in previous books we have seen plenty of disarming happen (DA lessons specifically pop into mind although I know there are more instances). It does not seem like any of the DA members’ wands stop working properly for them after these lessons. Is this because the winner of the wand willingly returns it? Does a conquered wand that becomes loyal to a new master also continue to be loyal to its original master if he/she is still alive (the wand does not become disloyal, but it adds onto the list of those it will be loyal to)? Any ideas? (I apologize if this is an inappropriate place to ask this question.)

  • http://chiideki.com Aileen

    @Kate, re: wandlore – I was wondering this myself. I would say that simply practicing Disarming spells, etc. during class or DA meetings is not truly dominating another person to gain mastership of their wand. However, instances like the Disarming in the Shrieking Shack in PA are still troubling. If I recall correctly, Lupin gave the wands back, which may be considered reneging the mastership one has (inadvertently) claimed. I’d like to see how well JKR covered her tracks in other instances, because it seems awfully unlikely that every wand we’ve seen won by force has obeyed as described in DH.

    My big question is this: How can Ron have told Dobby where the Shell Cottage was, if Bill was the Secret-Keeper?

    Also, where was Crookshanks?

  • Ghilz

    Crookshanks was probably with Hermione’s family.

  • King James

    @BLewis999
    I think there was a confrontation between Grendelwald and Gregorovich, didn’t Grendelwald cast a stun or disarm spell at Gregorovich before jumping out of the window?

  • http://www.obstbaum-server.de.vu Malte

    @Ailen: I think the Fidelius Charm was cast after Dobby had brought Dean, Luna and Mr. Ollivander to Shell Cottage. Thay told Bill what happened and he immediatly acted to protect his family, cast the spell on his own house and told Dobby, so he could return.

    What I wonder is, do all wands that are loyal to a person become loyal to another one if that other one takes one only one of the wands? Because Harry didn’t take the Elder Wand from Malfoy, he couldn’t have because it lay in Dumbeldores tomb. He only taked Malfoys school wand, but the Elder Wand becomes loyal to him, too.

  • YYM_C

    Wand loyalty may work this way:

    A disarms B using Expelliarmus spell.

    A picks up B’s wand but does not use it, returning it to B – B is still master of his wand.

    But if A uses B’s wand BEFORE returning it to B, then A is now the master of B’s wand.

    So during the DA Expelliarmus practice, if the wand is simply picked up and returned to the owner – no change of owner.

    In the Shrieking Shack, Lupin disarms the Trio and collects their wands. He then returns them later, without using them.

    The Trio are still masters of their wands.

  • AlbusSeverusPotter

    Are you sure that “Dumbledore intended for Severus Snape to become the master of the Elder Wand.” I was under the impresion that Harry told Voldemort in the great hall that Dumbledore had intended to die being the last master. The plan went wrong at some point but it was actually quite beneficial at the end.

    “Neither he nor Harry ever reunited the Hallows.” Well, that may not be incorrect, but I have to say that in HBP the hallows where all three in the same room at least a couple of times. Since Dumbledore had both the ring and the wand and Harry was constantly carrying the cloak. I guess this just speaks better of Dumbledore, since he was perfectly aware of this.

    I don’t ussualy contribute to this site, I hope this is useful. I’ve been reading the series for seven years and found the lexicon around the same time, if I remember well. I think you deserve as much thanks as JKR, since you’ve certainly helped a lot to make the experience so enjoyable. So thank you very very much Lexicon staff.

  • YYM_C

    I forgot to add how Harry becomes master of the Elder Wand:

    Draco disarms Dumbledore – he should be master of the Elder wand, but he does not cast a spell with it, therefore he does not ‘bond’ with it.

    The wand is placed in Dumbledore’s tomb.

    Draco is now, technically, the wand master of 2 wands but he continues to use his usual wand.

    Harry defeats Draco in his home and uses the wand, thus becoming, the wand master of Draco’s wand.

    Harry also automatically becomes the wand master of the Elder wand.

    Voldemort posses but never becomes master of the Elder wand, yet he is able to kill with it (Harry in the Forest, but he does not defend). But there is no ‘power’ to his spells – Harry can deflect the Avada Kedavra with Expelliarmus (later in the final duel).

  • PoorSeverus

    Maybe I’m a bit dim (I must read DH several times more anyway..) but can anyone tell me exactly what that baby-like lump under the chair was? When Harry had just been supposedly killed by Voldemort…?
    Otherwise; Great book!!! And I also think DD put the ring on before distoying the Horcrux

  • Ghilz

    “can anyone tell me exactly what that baby-like lump under the chair was”

    The dying piece of Voldemort’s soul inside Harry’s

  • PoorSeverus

    Thank you. that was my idea too, good to have it confirmed..

  • ravenclaw rambler

    It is, I think, only the Elder wand which recognises a new master by conquest. So the wands used by the DA practising “expelliamus” did not change allegiance.
    When Harry defeated Malfoy, the Elder wand recognised this, despite the fact that Malfoy was using another wand (his own) at the time.

  • John

    I’ve done a few more updates based on everyone’s excellent feedback. A few quotes I want to pull out:

    “I quite forgot that [the ring] was now a Horcrux…. I picked it up, and I put it on.” (Dumbledore, DH35)

    “I believe that the last time I saw the sword of Gryffindor leave its case was when Professor Dumbledore used it to break open a ring.” (Phineas Nigellus, DH15)

    “Did you think that breaking the ring would break the curse?” (Snape, DH33)

    So the sequence of events was thus:
    -Dumbledore found the ring and put it on, enacting the curse
    -He returned to his office
    -He destroyed the ring
    -Snape came and confined the curse to Dumbledore’s hand – BUT Dumbledore told him he had broken the ring first, so as not to arouse Snape’s suspicions as to what had really happened

    In other words, I had this one wrong earlier (I was misled as Snape was :) ) but the page is now updated correctly.

    I also updated the final paragraph to clarify “uniting the Hallows” – thanks to AlbusSeverusPotter for that!

  • Babette d’Yveine

    A couple of diappointments — I think it would have been nice if the Epilogue had told us what happened to the Dursleys, especially Dudley. I also thought that in the Half-Blood Prince there was a hint that Petunia knew a lot more than she was letting on. I expected to find what this was in Deathy Hallows, but there was nothing other than Snape’s recollection of her as a child.

  • Guy Teague

    i posted this query earlier, but have seen no guesses as to why olivander does not know that harrys wand can be repaired. has the elder wand never been put to this purpose before harry tries it? why should the elder wand even work for this task?

  • Embla

    I noticed what Joe Coffey wrote earlier about Elder together with a web address .
    I glanced at the text and noticed some important mistakes. There are different kinds of Elder!
    Now, I live in Europe and have Elder in my own garden. The one with edible black berries and flowers to make desserts, juice or even wine is called Sambucus nigra.
    Flowers are broad and flat.
    Here I know of two poisionous Elder with red berries (don’t eat!) and round flowers called Sambucus racemosa and Sambucus ebulus.

    Someone talked about Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), which belongs the the Rose family, Rosaceae, a widespread member of the Plum genus.

  • Deborah Hubbard

    I’m reluctant to make a fiddling little amendment to such a splendid, and speedy, piece of work, but … Dumbledore and Grindelwald plan to use the Deathly Hallows to take over the world, not to overtake it (which would require a very fast car …); or perhaps it’s one of those things that works differently in American English? In which case, I apologise!

  • Katie

    Guy Teague re: Olivander & the Elder Wand

    As I believe you pointed out earlier, Olivander tells Harry that his phoenix wand “can’t be repaired by any means that I know of.” (UK 398). This doesn’t mean it can’t be done, only that Olivander is not aware of how. Olivander also goes on in the same chapter (The Wandmaker) to say that there are gaps in the knowledge of the Wands history. He also says that there are identifying characteristics of the Elder Wand, but some references are “obscure” and they have a “ring of authenticity” about them. I think the use of the word ring is important. Something that has a ring of authenticity is not precisely the same thing as something that has been completely proven. I also think that there would be very little historical information about specific properties of the Wand, as very few people would want to master it purely to study it.

    I think the reason the Elder Wand fixes Harry’s phoenix wand is because the Elder Wand will perform extraordinary magic for its rightful owner. Witness VM wondering “why the Elder Wand refuses to be what it ought to be, refuses to perform as legend says it must perform for it’s rightful owner…” (UK 527) In other words, he is only able to do his regular magic at its regular intensity with the Wand. Harry IS the rightful owner of the Wand, and thus his ordinary magic (Reparo) becomes extraordinarily powerful when he uses the Elder Wand.

    That’s the best I could come up with for you. Interesting area of speculation!

  • Reader2

    I have a comment about the Resurection Stone.
    The tale said that Candamus Peverell went insane and killed himself after his attempt to rewive his dead fiance did more harm than good.
    So how exactly could he leave any decsendends?
    To me it sounds that however the stone was passed it was not through decsendends, at least hot just decsendends.

  • Reader2

    Now I have a comment about the Elden Wand, or rather a suggestion.
    Mr. Lovegood had given quite a list of the wand’s past owners, would you consider adding that list to the entry.
    Could be impressive.

  • ravenclaw rambler

    Reader2’s comment about the Resurection Stone.
    “The tale said that Cadmus Peverell went insane and killed himself after his attempt to revive his dead fiancee did more harm than good. So how exactly could he leave any decsendants?”
    There are two possible ways: Cadmus could have been married, had children, and become a widower, before his engagement to the fiancee who died.

    Alternatively, he could have married someone else, and had children, after the fiancee died – the tale says he acquired the stone a long time after the fiancee had died. It also says he lived alone, so he would have been a widower with his children grown up by the time recounted in the tale.

  • Dan

    “1. Dumbledore put the ring on AFTER destroying the Horcrux, from this quote in DH33: “[Snape] looked down at the broken ring and the sword. ‘Did you think that breaking the ring would break the curse?’” This implies very strongly that Dumbledore broke the ring first, then put it on. It also verifies that the ring was broken before Harry ever saw him wearing it.”

    I don’t think so. How do you put on a broken ring?

  • txag

    The ring wasn’t broken, just the stone in the ring. And Dumbledore tells Harry that he when he saw the ring he forgot it was a Horcrux and he put it on. He only told Snape he broke the ring first because he didn’t want to tell Snape about the ring actually being the Resurrection Stone.

  • http://myspace.com/noblebirthdescending Alison aka NobleBirth Descending

    Continuing with the thoughts of AlbusSeverusPotter, the Deathly Hallows were reunited physically, if not by the same master, early in Half Blood Prince. On HBP3,USpg56, it states that “(Harry) had stuffed (his Invisibility Cloak) into an inside pocket of his jacket, Dumbledore waved his wand…” and moments later Harry grasped Dumbledore’s arm to perform side-along apparition. Less than a dozen pages later, “Harry noticed a ring on (Dumbledore’s) uninjured hand that he never had seen Dumbledore wear before: It was large, rather clumsily made of what looked like gold, and was set with a heavy black stone that had cracked down the middle.” (HBP4,USpg67).

  • PoorSeverus

    Can anyone give me a simple conclusion as to why Voldemort could not kill Harry in the end/Why Harry survived and Voldemort died? Dumbledore mentioned something about Harry not being able to live if Voldemort died.. I think..

  • OVW

    A note on the Cloak properties: Summoning Charm does not work on it, so it cannot be forcefully taken by magic when the owner is wearing it, unlike any other cloak, I would guess… (p 555, DH US)Perfect protection! I wish I had one of those…:-)

  • Windjammers

    Can anyone give me a simple conclusion as to why Voldemort could not kill Harry in the end/Why Harry survived and Voldemort died? Dumbledore mentioned something about Harry not being able to live if Voldemort died.. I think..

    ~~~~~

    Harry was an unintentional horcrux. Voldemort tried to kill Harry with the Elder wand that viewed Harry as its master. Voldemort uttered the killing curse, but the wand refused to kill Harry. My guess is that it just knocked him out momentarily and he had a near death experience where he could choose to die or go back to the world of the living. Also, there was nothing to interfere with the transmission of the spell since Harry didn’t defend himself. He was going to get hit.

    When Voldemort “killed” Harry, sort of, that destroyed his being a horcrux. The vessel was “damaged.” It only really destroyed Voldemort’s soul that was inside Harry. Also, remember that Harry still had Lily’s protection. So did Voldemort. When Voldemort tried to kill Harry, the protection kicked in on both of them — the part that was Harry in both of them was protected but the part that was Voldemort wasn’t.

    Then, in the last battle, every single horcrux was destroyed. When Harry and Voldemort throw curses at each other, Voldemort is still using the Elder wand which views Harry as its master. This time, Harry sends a spell back (he didn’t do that in the forest). The spells collided and the Elder wand got jerked or pulled or it jumped from Voldemort’s grasp and the curse he sent backfired (or the curse backfired and then the wand was jerked out of his hand from the force of the spell). With no horcruxes left, there was nothing to stop Voldemort from dying and going to that place where Harry saw that small portion curled up under a chair.

  • John

    I literally just realized this, remember the W.O.M.B.A.T.? Remember how we got in, the triange, the circle, and the stick put together happen to form the Perevell Coat of Arms, Grindelwald’s mark, and the symbol of the Deathly Hallows, in a way, Jo was sort of telling us about the Deathly Hallows before it came out. Just thought you’d like to know.

  • John

    Sorry triangle, not triange!

  • Martin

    About the ring.
    If sword of Griffindor can’t destroy the horcrux, why DD want to Harry have it? So DD should have put the ring first before destroy the horcrux.

  • Jayni D.

    Martin, the sword of Gryffindor DID destroy the horcrux. If Dumbledore had used the sword to destroy the ring BEFORE putting it on, he would never have been cursed. The curse was a protection for the horcrux and was activated when Dumbledore put the ring on.

  • Karen L

    Sorry, Windjammers, I disagree with your reasoning. I think harry couldn’t be killed because of the resurrection stone. He possessed it, had turned it three times, he owned the cloak, and was the true master of the wand. He was the master of death at the time and could not be killed. Why else would Dumbledore have given him the stone that would only “open at the close”?

  • Ciara

    He gave him the stone so that he could bring back his parents, Sirius, and Lupin to give him the courage to walk to death. Because Harry would never have used that stone for selfish reasons like Dumbledore would have done, he used it becaues he need them there with him.

  • http://myspace.com/noblebirthdescending Alison aka NobleBirth Descending

    I agree with Karen L. about the protection of the Deathly Hallows afforded to Harry. Harry chose to use the Stone to walk to death with his deceased loved ones. I don’t think that he realized that he was Master of the Elder Wand until after his conversation with Dumbledore in King’s Cross so the Hallows weren’t selfishly used to thwart death.

  • Windjammers

    I think Dumbledore figured out that one way to help defeat Voldemort was to unite the Deathly Hallows. Yes, it was Harry that had to do the defeating, but if he had the Hallows, that would also give him a measure of protection against death. Basically, he’d be master of the Elder wand which Voldemort had in his possession, and the power of the wand would be much stronger if one person had “control” of all the Hallows. Harry had inherited the cloak. Dumbledore gave him the Resurrection Stone, and Harry made himself master of the Elder Wand without knowing it. I don’t think the Elder Wand would have been as powerful if the three Hallows hadn’t been brought together by the same person. It was powerful, but maybe not as much?

  • Beatrice

    Harry dropped the Resurrection Stone after he called back his parents & friends and before he got to Voldemort, therefore, the three were Not all together when he died.

  • Taniac

    i think harry may have had an idea that he was the master of the elder wand after his trip into snapes memories, however he chose not to aknowledge it because it was useless to fight when he went into the forest, he knew his path had been set from the beginning and that he had to die to beat voldemort. however when he awoke and realised he wa not in fact dead he was able to acknowledge his power as the master of the wand and finally defeat voldemort!! (and very smoothly might i add, quite worthy of Dumbledore; calling him “Tom Riddle” loved it!!).. one thing i would like to add is that in OTP pg 33-34 petunia says to harry, “they guard the wizard prizon, Azkaban” and “i heard – that awful boy – telling her about them – years ago” in relation to the dementors. harry replies to use their names if she was referring to his parents. however on pg 591 we find out that they started dating in their 7th yr so that horrible boy was never james.. he would have been to old to be a ‘boy’ to petunia by the time they had met… in DH however on pg535-534 in snapes memory lily asks “tell me about the dementors again” to which snape replies “… They guard the Wizard prizon Azkaban..” which identifies snape as that awful boy from OTP!!! i have waited 4 years for that info… thought id share!!!

  • what-about-dudley

    “I think it would have been nice if the Epilogue had told us what happened to the Dursleys, especially Dudley”
    ~
    i agree. it seemed like he would be a bigger part of the story after he was so emotional about leaving harry. i think it would have been better if he was mentioned at the end of the story.

  • Reader2

    what-about-dudley,
    I think the fate of Dudley was not told for a reason.
    We found out that he felt guilty about the way he treated Harry and greatful.
    That’s all that should be enough to show us that he grew up to be a better man than his father.
    It also givews us the idea of what he saw felt when he was demented. He felt guilt.
    The same, by the way goes for Wormtail.
    We never found out anything about his past, but he did repay his debt to Harry and that’s all that matters.

  • Reader2

    Closer to the subject,
    There is also the reason why we never found out the details of how Dumbledore had defeated Grindelwold.
    The Elder Wand made it impossible to bit him in fair duel, so Dumbledore had to use some kind of dirty trick.
    That had to be what Rita meant when she said that Grindelwold simply conjured up a whit flag and surrendered. Once he lost his wand, he was finished and had to give up.
    My guess is that Harry figured out htis much and desided that what ever Dumbledore did – he did what he had to, and it’s better not to know.

  • John

    Reader2, I doubt that Dumbledore would do a dirty trick, they probably dueled and Grindelwald was disarmed some how, and the rest was history. Dumbledore, I think, was as powerful in his youth as he was in his death.

  • Windjammers

    Beatrice wrote:

    Harry dropped the Resurrection Stone after he called back his parents & friends and before he got to Voldemort, therefore, the three were Not all together when he died.

    ~~~~~

    No, they weren’t together and they were never united, but they were all in the control of Harry. He was the owner of all three, and I think the wand realized that. That’s why I think the wand was more powerful and more loyal to Harry — it knew all three were in the control of one individual.

  • Reader2

    John,
    I have no doubt that Dumbledore was powerful enough to defeat Grindelwold, but isn’t it specifically stated, that the Elder Wand makes it’s master unbeatable to anyone, no matter how powerful they are.
    The way to disarm someone with that wand would be to ambush him, the way Draco ambushed Dumbeledore, or physically jump them, they way Ron jumped Wormtail, but certainly not beat them in a fare duel.

    Also, was Harry wise in the way he hid the wand and the ring?

    Wont the wand recognize the next person who steals it from the grave as its new master?

    Voldemort did say that taking the wand without the owner’s permition qualifies as defeating the owner, even if the owner is dead.
    Of cause, Harry does not have to aggree with Voldemort.

    And the ring, what are the odds that no one will ever find it?

  • Reader 3

    Snape wasn’t trying to cure Dumbledore’s hand. He managed to isolate the curse in his hand as a temporary measure, but it would spread again from there until it killed him.

    The whimpering, disgusting creature underneath the chair I believe to be what was left of Voldemort’s soul

  • Jayni D.

    Reader2, I don’t think anybody else knows about the power of the elder wand. It’s doubtful that Voldemort told any of his followers, since he mostly kept them informed on a ‘need-to-know’ basis. Obviously, he told Snape, but then he killed him. Harry, Ron, & Hermione wouldn’t tell anybody about it, and the rest of the wizarding world thinks of the tale of the hallows as simply a children’s story.

    Also, I doubt very much if anyone would stumble across the resurrection stone in the forest, as it was dropped in the area where the acromantulas lived. Once Voldemort died, I’m sure these spiders would return to their home.

  • John

    Reader2, the odds of the wand is good. I’m assuming from what I drew out of Deathly Hallows that only Xenophilius, Ron, Harry, and Hermione know about the Deathly Hallows, and the ring is safe because of it’s position. Who knows? Maybe Bane or Ronan or Magorian knew what was going on, recognized the ring for what it was, and decided that it would be safer with the centaurs.

  • Reader2

    Jayni D. and John,
    You say no one knows about the properties of the wand, but remember that impressive speach that Harry makes before his final confrontation with Voldemort.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but in that speach, didn’t Harry explain all the rules of the Elder Wand to everyone in the Great Hall?
    As for the ring, I aggree that centaurs and achromantulas could make good guardians for it. But on the other hand, didn’t Harry himself succesfully get past both?
    Besides, most centaurs seem to be extremely caucious with magic, but most centaurs don’t teach at Hogwarts either.
    What if one of them gets tempted by the stone after all?

  • DA Jones

    As best as I can figure out the Elder Wand business, you need to take ‘a wand’ either magically or physically from the master of the wand, which may not involve killing in order to become ‘title holder or master of the wand. However title is useless unless you actually possess it.

    1) This may mean Gregorvitch was the possessor, but not the title owner/master of the elder wand, they don’t have to be the same thing. You can physically possess the wand but not have it recognize you as title holder/master. Whoever sold the wand to Gregorivtich would have had to be beaten in combat (probably killed) by Grimwauld before her raided Gregorvitch’s shop.

    2) This means if one of Harry’s son’s is just playing with Harry and manages to disarm him, then his son; — say Albus who he warns about dueling unitl he is ready could be the master of the elder wand.

    And notice in the epilogue how Harry warns Albus about dueling.

    I don’t think Harry has to be worried about being disarmed whule an Auror, because 1) even if he is, the baddie would have to find where the wand is, and no one knows were Harry hid it.in order to get any use other then title to it. 2) If he disarms them bsack or another Auror such as Ron does as per JKR recent interview, then they would control the elder wand.

    A funny idea is if Albus has ‘title, but not possession’then the title could spend years passing around the students at Hogwarts.

  • abbylayne

    Maybe I missed this while I was reading but how did Neville get the sword of Gryffindor from Griphook? He had it in the end but I don’t remember reading how Neville got the sword back.

  • Reader2

    abbylayne,
    Neville, got the sword the same way Harry got it in the CoS.
    Godric must’ve put some kind of spell on the sword, so it is transported into the hat whenever a true Griffindore reaches into the hat at a time of crisis.
    It is likely that someon summoned the sword the same way, when it was in posession of Ragnuk the First.
    Thus the accusations against Godric.

  • Jayni D.

    Reader2, you are right about Harry telling about the Elder Wand at the last; however, I’m thinking all those people watching probably didn’t understand what Harry was talking about. Even if they did, he told no one what he was going to do with the wand, except Dumbledore’s picture, Ron, & Hermione.

    As for the stone, it’s much more likely that the centaurs would smash it under their hooves rather than find it. They likely don’t roam through the forest looking down. The stone was small enough to fit into a ring, and was black, so would blend into the dirt of the forest floor. The spiders wouldn’t be remotely interested in the stone. And unless someone knew exactly where it was and went to look for it immediately, before wind, weather, and trampling forest animals’ feet buried it, the chances of anyone finding it are very, very slim.

    Also, the witnesses to Harry and LV’s final confrontation might have heard the story of the wand, but not of the stone, and none of them (except Ron & Hermione) knew it had been in Harry’s possession.

    My feeling is that the wand and the stone are pretty safe.

  • Reader2

    Sorry, Jayni D.
    I am still not convinced. Some of the crowd who heard Harry’s conversation with Voldemort would not understand what it was about, but those with brains had to.
    None of them heard what he intends to do with the wand, granted, but would it be really that hard to gues that he might return it to Dumbledore’s grave?
    Harry’s respect for Dumbledore is well none.
    You are right about the ring, no one knew about it, and no one would look for it.
    Still, did you notice how Harry just happened to stumble upon the Diadem of Ravenclaw in the room of requirement?
    Magical objects do seem to have a way of finding owners.
    Also, it took the Sword od Griffindor even to crack the Stone of Resurection. There is no way a centaur could smash it by accident.

  • txag

    It took the sword of Griffindor to smash the stone because it was a Horcrux, not because it was the Resurrection Stone.

  • John

    Reader2, I have been speaking with some of my associates, and we have realized that there was a flaw in Grindelwalds plan, some people that I know say that the only reason Dumbldore won was not because he pulled some dirty trick, because, if the wand is stolen from someone, that doesn’t mean that it will bend to their will. Meaning that Dumbledore probably disarmed Grindelwald because the wand wasn’t working with him as it would to it’s true master.

  • Reader2

    txag,
    Even after the ring stopped being a Hocrux, it was still a Hallow.
    Hallows would not last as long as they had if they were easy to break.

    John,
    It was specifically stated in the book that stealing a wand qualifies as winning it.
    Can you show any counter-proof to that?

  • txag

    There is no proof that either the wand or the stone would not be able to be broken. We know the cloak can’t be destroyed but we don’t know about the other two. There is a pretty big chance that no one has tried to break the wand because it is unbeatable. The power would be to tempting. And the people, like Marvolo Gaunt, who were in possession of the stone as a ring probably had no clue what the stone did. They just thought it was a ring with the Peverell coat of arms and they wouldn’t want to destroy a family heirloom.

  • Reader2

    txag,

    Did notice how many wands got snapped in a fight by accident?
    How about Charlies wand that simply got worn out over the years?
    And yet, the Elder Wand was still usable after ceturies of heated duels.

  • txag

    Actually the only wands that get broken are Harry’s, Ron’s, and Lucius’s (at least that I can think of) but I agree that they would be harder to break by accident but I think it could still be done. I think someone could still have snapped the wand if they would have tried. Unless it is the core that stops it but as we don’t know what is in it, I think it is safe to assume that it would be breakable.

  • Reader2

    Anything is breakable when you try hard enough.
    I am merely saying that objects as powerful as Hallows would have to be very hard to break.
    It would have to take more than just tossing one into the forrest and hoping that some centaur will accidently step on it.

  • Siriusrulz

    On page 230 it clearly states that Grinlewald shot a stunning spell at Gregorvitch before jumping from the window

    I also think it is possible to defeat the elder wand because of DD’s fight with Grindlewald and in the fight with DD and Volde Volde puts up a fight that rivals that of DD even with the elder wand

    I also think that harry survived the attack due to the double conection between harry and voldemort the conection being voldemorts conection witht the horcrux in harry and the blood bond between them. After the harry horcrux was destroyed it returned to a single conection therefor returning them mortal

  • horcruxy

    does any one find it a little odd with that begger with the one eye?
    And that Mad-eyes body was neva found?
    maybe just maybe he lives!!!

  • csd

    Toward the end of DH (chapter where Harry & Dumbledore where in the mist area), Dumbledore confirmed that Harry was a decendent of Ignotus Peverells.

  • kamion

    talking about breaking wands;

    I don’t think it would be wise to try breaking the Elder wand, it would not be destroyed and could still act but in a powerfull, but very unpredictable way.
    We saw what ahppened when Lockhart threw his best curse with Ron’s broken wand, it backfired and the ceiling came down…. imagine that with a broken Elder wand; Hogwarts would be wiped from the earth.

  • John

    I would never attempt to break the Elder Wand either. That’s probably the worst thing that can be done to it. I like Harry’s idea of allowing it to sit in Dumbledore’s tomb and living his life normally and when he dies, the wands power would diminish.

  • Reader2

    That’s just it, John.
    Would it really diminish?
    Voldemort believed that it wouldn’t.
    He thought that stealing from the dead owner, is the same as defeating the owner.
    Harry seems to disaggree, but what if he is wrong?

  • Hermy

    VI, actually JKR confirmed that DD would’ve saw his family in the mirror. So I guess I was right, but what you said made sense. Sometimes it’s a bit simpler though.

  • John

    Reader2, Harry is quite similar to Albus Dumbledore in the fact that his guesses or hunches don’t fall far from the mark, Draco for instance, Harry thought that he was a Death Eater along with Crabbe and Goyle. Then the Hallows thing, he was right about that too. He was right about more things than most give him credit for.

  • Reader2

    Well, John,
    You are probably right about this one.
    Harry did outsmart Voldemort reagarding who was the master of the wand, so perhaps Voldemort was wrong about stealing from the dead too.
    However, what if someone steals the wand while Harry is still alive (which might be well over a century)?
    I hope he took some precautions.
    As for the ring, Harry himself did not sound very certain on that subject. He merely said he “hopes” that it will stay in the forrest.
    There is nothing wrong with the book being a bit open-ended.

  • txag

    JKR said in an online interview that the centaurs stepped on the stone when they decided to help fight. She said it was pushed into the ground and buried.

  • Reader2

    Buried thing do recerface every once in a while.
    I keep running into bits of info from the interview all over various sites, but still hadn’t seen the interview itself. Can anyone point me toward it?

  • DTP

    Regarding DD’s defeat of Grindelwald:

    I don’t think DD had to ambush Grindelwald or steal the Elder Wand. Only in The Tales of Beedle the Bard was it stated that the wand was unbeatable. DD said that it was very likely that the tale grew up around the objects after the Peverell brothers created them. So while the Elder Wand was very powerful, it was not necessarily unbeatable. Also, DD stated that he was perhahps a “shade more skillful” than Gindelwald. Sorry I don’t have the book on me right now to give chapter references.

  • Mei

    If Nagini was still alive and a Horrcrux when Harry went into the forest, why on earth did Harry “sacrifice” himself when Voldemort was still immortal? If he had died, then no one else would have been able to kill him unless Nagini was killed. Yes, he told Neville, but that’s all he knew. If Hermione and Ron had died, then no one would have known it was a Horrcrux.
    So, if Harry had died, and Voldemort still had Horrcrux-Nagini then no one would have been able to kill him or thought they could since everyone thought Harry was the one.

  • josh

    I don’t understand the fact about the wand properties, if its true that the elder wand was Harry’s because he took Draco’s wand .. ::Which I think had the power or allegiance of the elder wand because he disarmed Dumbledore witch the wand seen that as a defeat, but however didn’t need to have the wand itself to show he had its power::.. However I don’t understand.. If the wand had been taken or stolen or “won” over, like the elder wand, does that mean you always win the wands intelligent and allegiance? Cause if that’s true… that means that every wand that was or had been disarmed from their owner allegiance is now under the control of the disarmer? I know a person can use a wand that hasn’t chosen them but not properly… It says in book 7 pg. 494 that this holds true for all wands .:: winning its allegiance::.. Then I think that who ever wands get taken away from them by force or disarming, the disarmer now has that wands allegiance because you don’t necessarily need the wand to prove you have it…. Exp.. The elder wand… it new that Harry had its power because it was taken from Draco. but earlier in the books,, Harry’s wand has been disarmed many times from him so wouldn’t the allegiance of his wand go to the victor even if they did not claim his wand?….

  • Luna Lover

    I had always hated snape although i always new that he didnt kill dumbledor on will but his death was……….Brutal……….i mean i cryed it was a suffered terible death.

  • Reader2

    josh,
    Harry did loose his wand several times, but he would always get it back, thus he won it back.

  • Reader2

    DTP,
    Even if “unbeatable” was just an exageration, Harry did demonstrate how much the wand umplifies the owner’s magic.
    Dumbledore would need to be more than “a shade more powerfull” to beat Grindlwald.

  • Josh

    Reader2,
    I know that, but like I said, they don’t have to have his want to prove that they have control over it, if it was disarmed from him, then the allegiance is no longer with him, even if he still has his wand… But like I said, it doesn’t make any since to me how the laws work with wandlore.

  • Reader2

    Josh,

    If someone disarmed Harry and took control of his wand, he can win the control back the same way, by disarming them back or wrestling the wand away from them.

    It’s that simple.

    Althoug, I guess in case of the Elder Wand the effect of ownership is amplified, just like its holder’s magic.

  • Cricket

    I think it depends on the circumstances of how the wand is won. In a classic duel to learn how, I don’t think it matters because disarming wasn’t part of
    COS when they were learning to duel.

    Later, as they get more knowledge and skill and are selective, it would make sense that the wand would choose…but Harry’s wand keeps coming back.

  • josh

    Oh.. OK I understand.. he does win back his wand now that you put it that way.. so i guess it works both ways…duh… lol well thanks …

  • David

    Many of the wands in the series are made from British hedgerow shrubs or the smaller trees (blackthorn, hawthorn, holly, yew spring to mind), rather than oak, beech or the other larger trees, whilst the most powerful of all is made from elder – often seen as one of the least regarded of shrubs. Does JKR comment on this anywhere?

  • Margaret

    I think that Siriusrulz’s explanation of the Harry/Voldemort soul/body connection and the flayed child in Chapter 34 is right on the mark.

    As for the Resurrection Stone, it was broken by Dumbledore when he destroyed it as a Horcrux. The broken stone was apparently removed from the ring as one half of the stone was in each half of the Snitch when Harry opened it. Being broken, however, apparently did not affect its Hallow properties as Harry’s parents, Sirius, and Lupin (only dead a few hours at the time) appeared in shadow form to support Harry on the way to his rendezvous with Voldemort in the clearing in the Forbidden Forest. The word “accidental” appears in your article, John. There is no indication that Harry dropped the two parts of the Stone accidentally. Indeed, he let them slip through his fingers onto the floor of the forest, surely deliberately, prior to revealing his presence to Voldemort. As he knew the Resurrection properties of the Stone still worked he surely would not have wanted the stone (broken or otherwise) to be found on his body.

  • Amy

    Everything on that page seems to be underlined, EXCEPT the links. Weird

  • Diana Weasley

    Regarding the phrophesy Neville killed Nagini, the last of the horcruxes, which enabled Voldermort to be truley killed. Does this mean that if Voldermort had not chosen Harry, Neville could have fulfilled the phrophesy?

  • Bandersnatch

    @Margaret,

    Dumbledore removed the Resurrection Stone from the ring, but it was not in two pieces. “The black stone with its jagged crack running down the center sat in the two halves of the Snitch. … He closed his eyes and turned the stone [singular] over in his hand three times.” The stone was big enough that it sat in both halves of the Snitch at the same time when he opened it partway.

    Also, I believe John is correct that Harry dropped the stone accidentally. “The Resurrection Stone slipped from between his numb fingers.”

  • Sam

    Why does most people who poseses the stone are dead?

  • Reader2

    Because raising the dead is a dangerous activity.

    It drove Candamus Peverell insane, lured Dumbledor right into a trap.

    Harry found what appeared to be the safest way to use it, but even he found it to stressful to resist the temptation to recall the shadows of his loved ones.

    My guess is that he didn’t try to hide the ring more carefully because he simply did not want to ever touch it again and experience the temptation.

  • Margaret

    Bandersnatch,
    Regarding the state of the Resurrection Stone, after condidering your comments I believe you are correct, that the stone was cracked not broken through and that it was large enough to fit across the Snitch hinge and thus sit in both halves. I was about to protest again about the “accidentally” dropped Stone saying that Harry would surely have dropped the Stone deliberately so that it would not fall into Voldemort’s hands after Harry’s death. And I also figured that it was necessary for Harry to face Voldemort alone, even without the presence of the shadow parents, Sirius and Lupin. But then I though again and realized that Harry had the Invisibility Cloak on him so Voldemort would be getting that; Harry was not therefore rationally deciding to deprive Voldemort of Hallows. Indeed, had Voldemort killed Harry (as Voldemort intended and Harry expected) and Harry still had the Stone then Voldemort would be the possessor of all three Hallows. The next question: since Harry did not defend himself, if Voldemort had killed him would Voldemort then be the true possessor of the Elder Wand, or would it revert to Draco Malfoy, or would no one then be a true owner?

  • Reader2

    Margaret,

    I think Harry was not concerned with Voldemort getting the Hallows, because Voldemort didn’t know about the Hallows, he only cared about the wand.
    Harry thought that when he dies Voldemort will only have one horcrux to rely on, and than Ron Hermione and Neville will be able to finish the job.

  • Rodiell

    But I just have one question, why did DD wore the ring? Did he know he was going to be cursed when he wore it?

    plasmatix, it was only a fairy tale. But what it really means is that the elder wand is superb.

  • Rodiell

    plasmatix,it was only a fairy tale.but what it really means is that the elder wand is superb.

  • Reader2

    Rodiell,
    Dumbledor pretty much explained himself.
    He wore the ring because he was so caught in the hope to have his family back, he forgot all about the hocruxes and curses.
    Even the wisest do stupid things once in a while.

  • Rodiell

    Thanx, it’s just that I known Dumbledore as someone who’s close to becoming perfect. And by the way I really loved book 7, I was shocked when I read the Prince’s Tale.

Harry Potter Lexicon logoAbout Us | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Copyright | ©2000 - 2014 The Harry Potter Lexicon.
NO PART OF THIS PAGE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT PERMISSION.
HARRY POTTER, characters, names, and all related indicia are trademarks of Warner Bros. ©2001-2014.

Page layout by Lisa Waite Bunker and Steve Vander Ark, banner graphics by Camilla Engelby © 2007.

Primary editor: Steve Vander Ark
Original photograph © Steve Vander Ark
Original page date 9 June 2011; Last page update 14 June 2011 SVA